[Offtopic message with "bear bet" and "IBM seminar" topics inside.]
On 09 Jun 2004 10:26:11 +0300, Yuval Yaari wrote:
>> Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
>> >Yuval, I don't think you may convince me auto-completion is any good.
>> And I assume closing your editor, opening a new one, looking for that
> variables, getting back to the first editor, and pasting the variable is
> much better..?
This is only needed when I want to use some _external_ variable/function
for the first time and it is not already in another buffer. I explained
already why I think this is a good practice to avoid errors.
> This sounds like it should distract you from your code.
No, this is a goal-directed search. If I want to use some CGI function
among hundreds and I am not sure which one to use and which arguments,
I do Ctrl-Z, man CGI /keyword. Similarly, Ctrl-Z, any other unix command.
Did I say anyone should use this method? No, I only said this method
gives me the final result in 5 seconds.
> Auto-completion works without you even moving your eyes from the line
> you're working on.
> That's why I like it.
This reminds me about one of my Technion projects 9 years ago. I and my
parner were in hurry to submit our laboratory project, he used Word with
spell checker to document the work. The professor (Yossi Gil in this
case) was dissatisfied by several completely misplaced words, but then my
partner explained that he probably pressed the wrong button in the Word's
spell checker. It seemed then this explanation was accepted!
BTW, does anyone attend "IBM's Programming Languages and Development
Environments Seminar" in Haifa Univercity tomorrow? This professor will
speak about AspectJ2EE. :) Another seminar topic is "Aspects and their
Potential Harm", by the way.
> Also, just try to split the window, should be much easier for you.
"Should be much easier for me"? Even if I say, it is not? :)
> I'm just trying to understand how auto-completion, which improved my
> development (time and "correctness" [i.e: I always get a real variable
> name - never fails use strict;]), might be the wrong choice.
With spell checker you get only real words too. You trust your editor's
programming abilities, I don't. Because it is you who will debug and fix
the code later, not your editor. Wait, I forgot, in other messages you
wanted your text editor to debug the code too.
> Use notepad. It has all the features you need.
Seems you know "all the features I need". I have no notepad, but does it:
* support multiple files (with split/zoom)
* support multiple macros and enhanced block operations
* support keyboard bindings and enhanced command set
* support command line options and configuration files
* support incremental search among several other search types
* support regexp-like syntax in search and replace
* start in 1 millisecond without opening any new windows
* may be suspended without switching to another window
If all answers are no, then your flame is useless.
> Ok, so some editors (joe and notepad... pico...) do not do it.
> Why would you use such a featureless editor, I don't know.
Nonsense, joe is considerably more powerful than vim and emacs for the
editing tasks I perform daily. I am familar with many editors and use the
one giving me the best productivity. Is not this obvious, the whole
subject is very subjective and it depends on the person and the tasks?
Expanding the analogy, the mentioned professor was very surprised seeing
us working in "featureless" dos and unix, when other frameworks were
available for students.
> I bet your code (indention - wise) is horrible as a side effect :)
Taking in account you failed in all your other speculations about me,
it is likely you are wrong here too. :)
But, I take your bet. You will owe me one bear and public apology.
> And yes, I find leaving the editor and opening a new one stupid.
Of course, starting a new emacs operating system is a non option.
> At least your editor should let you split the damn window.
It does, and I choose the fastest method.
> So let me know how you stay focused this way
Arguably, the goal-directed search is always focused. But please don't
take it too hard, it is all subjective. Let's use the way each prefers
and never pretend it is the only "absolutely required" way (your words).
[The rest of the parent message that includes keywords "stupid ways",
"right tool", "you can't be" are skipped to spare the reader's time. :)]
Regards,
Mikhael.
--
perl -e 'print+chr(64+hex)for+split//,d9b815c07f9b8d1e'